You guys are fussing over getting credit for something which you did not invent.

Seems to me that Jeff is not claiming that he "invented" the basic bootloader stuff, just that some other people are not being straightforward in allowing credit for the creative input and development he undertook, which contributed to the lineage of ChromeOS.

Actually, they seem to be going further than that - they seem to be actively DENYING any developmental links. Whether that is through ignorance, or a deliberate desire to obfuscate, doesn't matter I guess. It still looks to me like ChromeOS offers a debt of gratitude to Puppy

Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself

Since Peter has confirmed your email that you sent on google's intranet and your discussion regarding Guppy, could someone file an GPL request for Guppy to Google? Since derivative use is covered under GPL, Google should have some mechanism in place for releasing it... shouldnt they? I can even understand if they dont release the entire thing, but surely there must be parts of it they could. And considering Google is 'claiming' that they didnt use Guppy at all, and that it has nothing to do with Chrome OS... there should be nothing holding them back. Trade secret would only apply if they are actively using components you put into Guppy for ChromeOS. Otherwise all non ChromeOS releated code should not be covered under trade secret.

jeff-nelson wrote:

I notice you guys are going back and forth talking about GPL and patent issues earlier in the thread. I am not aware of any of those issues.

Google hired one of the best patent law firms in Silicon Valley to file this patent, so presumably they would have worked out any of those issues prior to filing the patent.

In my days working with corporate america, I've learned one thing about Corporate attorneys, its not about right and wrong. It's about who can afford to last the longest in court. If Apple can patent Rectangular phones with rounded edges, as an 'original idea'... I have no faith at all in an attorney's ability to do whats 'right' and not instead just do whats best for the companies bottom line, no matter how shady it is. Many years back I was in a tussle with IBM over an encryption algorithm I attempted to patent, and although my patent was filed 14 months before theirs, they ended up winning the patent, simply because they could afford better attorneys than I was able. (IBM's firm was even polite enough to explain to me during the process that there was no way I'd win, since they could out spend me.)
So my faith in Patent Attorney's virtue... is very minimal.

jeff-nelson wrote:

Quote:

Wouldn't Guppy be covered by a licence that required the source etc to be made available? (Not that I really know anything useful about GPL and Linux licensing etc...)

Guppy was derived heavily from Puppy, so I think that means its automatically GPL and source would have to be provided.

I'm just hoping eventually some part of it makes it out of Google, even if just screencaps, so that the lineage of Chrome OS can be more clearly established.

Again, could someone request that through the GPL angle? Is this the sort of thing that would be best done by you... or someone else? If it needs a public figure outside of google and you (since you were an employee); I'll gladly step up and file whatever paperwork is needed.

jeff-nelson wrote:

Quote:

The discussion is not about silicon valley patent lawyers but about the basic concept of the use of community effort to make money due to restrictive practice. This is a fundamental question which governments will not tackle due to lobbyists from the industry.

Google's record of supporting the open source community, both with code and cash, is fairly exemplary.

No doubt, we need patent reform as a whole in the software industry. I specifically question the 20 year term of patents, since this industry has product life cycles that often last 1-2 years at most. Holding a patent for 20 years in the software industry is as good as holding a patent, forever.

Until reform happens, companies have to work within the current system.

Google has been very supportive of the open source community, but that's also because it helps their bottom line. As with any company, the decision over priorities comes down to the bottom line vs. altruism. Sometimes altruism will win, sometimes it will not._________________

I will point the puppylinux.ca/asia domain to a Google server at any time.

If anyone thinks the security is at risk...Google will be mostly safe....privacy was gone years ago so don't sweat the small stuff you see...development is more important as this is public anyway..Eric

EDIT:

For some reason I can't logout...so after this I remain buggered..ta_________________Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.
Chinese Proverb

Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself

Since Peter has confirmed your email that you sent on google's intranet and your discussion regarding Guppy, could someone file an GPL request for Guppy to Google? Since derivative use is covered under GPL, Google should have some mechanism in place for releasing it... shouldnt they? I can even understand if they dont release the entire thing, but surely there must be parts of it they could. And considering Google is 'claiming' that they didnt use Guppy at all, and that it has nothing to do with Chrome OS... there should be nothing holding them back. Trade secret would only apply if they are actively using components you put into Guppy for ChromeOS. Otherwise all non ChromeOS releated code should not be covered under trade secret.

Actually... I don't think the GPL works like that. If you have obtained the Guppy binaries, you very well could and should make the request, otherwise, if it hasn't been made available to you, aka is an in-house pup, then you don't have the right to require them to make their internal distro available to you.

At least this is what I believe is the case.

Simply to put it, if you don't have it, you can't use the GPL to request it. You have to have the binaries or some other form that can be used with the GPL to get it's source.

Actually... I don't think the GPL works like that. If you have obtained the Guppy binaries, you very well could and should make the request, otherwise, if it hasn't been made available to you, aka is an in-house pup, then you don't have the right to require them to make their internal distro available to you.

At least this is what I believe is the case.

Simply to put it, if you don't have it, you can't use the GPL to request it. You have to have the binaries or some other form that can be used with the GPL to get it's source.

This is my 2 cents.

I totally get what you are saying... but doesn't the derivative use take that bit out of the equation? Since its based on Puppy which is GPL... it has to be GPL. Since we have the binary and source for puppy which is what guppy is based on... dont we have the ability to request derivative changes?
From my understanding the only way around the derivative use clause is if a company claims 'trade secret'. Of course google is NOT doing this, and is trying to claim that nothing is based on Jeffs work. If thats the case, then it cant be protected under trade secret.

Or am I missing something else? I thought derivative use allowed upstream to request it. A person downstream has no initial requirement to release... unless its been requested, at which point they do.

I just ran across this post looking for one of my own posts that I explained how to fit a full X desktop into <1Mb and felt I had to disassociate myself with the GPL and any patent claim.

I have posted this elsewhere, but just to clarify all of my work on puppy and the many projects contributions that I've done are released to the public domain (regardless of what Barry uses) or any license of your choosing. If you want to sell it without crediting me, that's cool. If you want to fork it and slap a GPL on it, go ahead. As far as I am concerned, code is knowledge and knowledge hoarded is knowledge lost. If the guys at Google/Apple want use my work to create a new unbloated OS that will run on a 200Mhz toaster/web kiosk combo, great I'll buy a loaf of bread

hmmm... If you were building a toaster web kiosk, would you actually want an inefficient cpu, so it could double as the heating element? j/k who makes toast often enough to even keep up with slashdot?_________________Web Programming - Pet Packaging 100 & 101

Actually... I don't think the GPL works like that. If you have obtained the Guppy binaries, you very well could and should make the request, otherwise, if it hasn't been made available to you, aka is an in-house pup, then you don't have the right to require them to make their internal distro available to you.

At least this is what I believe is the case.

Simply to put it, if you don't have it, you can't use the GPL to request it. You have to have the binaries or some other form that can be used with the GPL to get it's source.

This is my 2 cents.

I totally get what you are saying... but doesn't the derivative use take that bit out of the equation? Since its based on Puppy which is GPL... it has to be GPL. Since we have the binary and source for puppy which is what guppy is based on... dont we have the ability to request derivative changes?
From my understanding the only way around the derivative use clause is if a company claims 'trade secret'. Of course google is NOT doing this, and is trying to claim that nothing is based on Jeffs work. If thats the case, then it cant be protected under trade secret.

Or am I missing something else? I thought derivative use allowed upstream to request it. A person downstream has no initial requirement to release... unless its been requested, at which point they do.

I could be completely wrong... I'm not a lawyer. lol

Again, do you have the binaries for Guppy, and not just the binaries they may have used, but binaries from Google? If so, then you can request whoever has given you those binaries for the source.

Guppy likely never got a public release, and until someone can prove Guppy is in ChromeOS as the OS portion, we have no grounds for requesting sources. It is the same as if someone had an in-house form of Linux, but people knew they used an in-house one. Should they be required to release something used in house, even if it's not for the masses, to the masses, just because it is Linux?

I don't know if it came out right, but it could basically be summed up as, does the GPL make it that I can request all the data on your system, since I could easily call it a derivative of Puppy, for other than maybe remastering, it is probably puppy, slightly changed by addition or subtraction of packages to itself, with perhaps a changed background and pinboard.

Actually... I don't think the GPL works like that. If you have obtained the Guppy binaries, you very well could and should make the request, otherwise, if it hasn't been made available to you, aka is an in-house pup, then you don't have the right to require them to make their internal distro available to you.

At least this is what I believe is the case.

Simply to put it, if you don't have it, you can't use the GPL to request it. You have to have the binaries or some other form that can be used with the GPL to get it's source.

This is my 2 cents.

I totally get what you are saying... but doesn't the derivative use take that bit out of the equation? Since its based on Puppy which is GPL... it has to be GPL. Since we have the binary and source for puppy which is what guppy is based on... dont we have the ability to request derivative changes?
From my understanding the only way around the derivative use clause is if a company claims 'trade secret'. Of course google is NOT doing this, and is trying to claim that nothing is based on Jeffs work. If thats the case, then it cant be protected under trade secret.

Or am I missing something else? I thought derivative use allowed upstream to request it. A person downstream has no initial requirement to release... unless its been requested, at which point they do.

I could be completely wrong... I'm not a lawyer. lol

Again, do you have the binaries for Guppy, and not just the binaries they may have used, but binaries from Google? If so, then you can request whoever has given you those binaries for the source.

Guppy likely never got a public release, and until someone can prove Guppy is in ChromeOS as the OS portion, we have no grounds for requesting sources. It is the same as if someone had an in-house form of Linux, but people knew they used an in-house one. Should they be required to release something used in house, even if it's not for the masses, to the masses, just because it is Linux?

I don't know if it came out right, but it could basically be summed up as, does the GPL make it that I can request all the data on your system, since I could easily call it a derivative of Puppy, for other than maybe remastering, it is probably puppy, slightly changed by addition or subtraction of packages to itself, with perhaps a changed background and pinboard.

again, just my two cents.

Well in the G+ thread the one google dev confirmed that the release was based on Puppy. By the very act of Jeff or whoever taking Puppy and making something else and THEN giving that to a 3rd person... GPL stands. Yes Jeff could have made it for himself and not shared it with everyone. GPL doesnt cover that, he's free to make any changes he wants. But when he transfers his alteration of GPL to a 3rd party, then the license kicks in. Doesnt matter if he gave it to google, or me, or Santa Clause, at that point the GPL is enforceable because of the 'redistribution' of a GPL product.

So no, you cant just randomly request my stuff that I have on my system, because I've not redistributed it. I've taken ti and I'm using it myself, which is allowed PER the GPL license. Once I give it to someone else... Then 3rd party derivative use has taken place, and in order to follow the license I must provide source.

Keep in mind all that's required for something not to be private 'Legally' is that a 3rd person has access. Hence why the gov can look into your emails if you want. There is no expectatinon of privacy because its transmitted to a 3rd party. Once it leaves your own personal property/control/etc ... its public. Perhaps not the best definition, but its the ones that the courts have defined. Same goes for playing a movie at a campsite with your family... you may only be sharing it with your family, but since someone else can walk by and view it... it's legally considered a public broadcast and a violation of Copyright.

Also lets keep in mind that Jeff did not engage in this work (he's even said as much) at the direction of Google. This was a project he initiated. Google did not say 'Go develope this for us'. He created it out of his own desire to improve and then voluntarily provided that to others at google for testing/sharing, etc. He did not write code and provide it to google at their request.
Him working at google really shouldnt hold any bearing. He of his own motivation... took GPL covered code, modified it, released it to an unknown number of people.
The fact that he was employed by google shouldnt make a difference, no more than it should matter if a developer here works for UPS or FedEX (for example). UPS and FedEx wouldnt have the ability to control GPL code simply because 'their employee' made it. That he shared it with google employees also shouldnt matter, no more than it should matter if I made a release and shared it with friends at UPS or FedEX.
If he was 'paid' by google to create this... then google could get their army of lawyers to defend them. But so far google has been pretty clear that there was nothing going on with Jeff and them about this. So they've basically shot themselves in the foot for claiming 'trade secret'

Of course that's all based on 'MY' understanding, which may very well not be 100% correct._________________

Well in the G+ thread the one google dev confirmed that the release was based on Puppy. By the very act of Jeff or whoever taking Puppy and making something else and THEN giving that to a 3rd person... GPL stands. Yes Jeff could have made it for himself and not shared it with everyone. GPL doesnt cover that, he's free to make any changes he wants. But when he transfers his alteration of GPL to a 3rd party, then the license kicks in. Doesnt matter if he gave it to google, or me, or Santa Clause, at that point the GPL is enforceable because of the 'redistribution' of a GPL product.

This means that that third party can use the GPL to obtain sources, but a fourth-party, which has not obtained this, such as us cannot obtain the sources unless we obtain it from the same person. If we obtained it from their third party, we can only make a request to that third party.

This means that if you got it, or Google or Santa Claus, then the person who has it can request sources. But I couldn't go and demand such from you just because it exists and has been distributed, unless you gave it to me directly.

If you need advice, ask RMS himself if he will help force Google or whoever to give you Guppy. Again my two cents.

A lot of ludicrous and archaic ideas about individual ownership of code illustrated here. SQLite uses a far more enlightened approach:

Quote:

SQLite Copyright

SQLite is in the
Public Domain

All of the deliverable code in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors. All code authors, and representatives of the companies they work for, have signed affidavits dedicating their contributions to the public domain and originals of those signed affidavits are stored in a firesafe at the main offices of Hwaci. Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.

The previous paragraph applies to the deliverable code in SQLite - those parts of the SQLite library that you actually bundle and ship with a larger application. Portions of the documentation and some code used as part of the build process might fall under other licenses. The details here are unclear. We do not worry about the licensing of the documentation and build code so much because none of these things are part of the core deliverable SQLite library.

A lot of ludicrous and archaic ideas about individual ownership of code illustrated here. SQLite uses a far more enlightened approach:

Quote:

SQLite Copyright

SQLite is in the
Public Domain

All of the deliverable code in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors. All code authors, and representatives of the companies they work for, have signed affidavits dedicating their contributions to the public domain and originals of those signed affidavits are stored in a firesafe at the main offices of Hwaci. Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.

The previous paragraph applies to the deliverable code in SQLite - those parts of the SQLite library that you actually bundle and ship with a larger application. Portions of the documentation and some code used as part of the build process might fall under other licenses. The details here are unclear. We do not worry about the licensing of the documentation and build code so much because none of these things are part of the core deliverable SQLite library.

BSD-like licenses and Public Domain FTW!

I tend to make things I work on available under the MIT license usually. Either that, or a license like what Tcl/Tk uses, which is also a permissive license afaik.

Since Peter has confirmed your email that you sent on google's intranet and your discussion regarding Guppy, could someone file an GPL request for Guppy to Google? Since derivative use is covered under GPL, Google should have some mechanism in place for releasing it...

I wish... I would love to see Google release some kind of records or the source code. Even a single screenshot of the desktop would be enormously helpful for documenting the history of the OS.

However, GPL wouldn't apply, because the Guppy binaries were never distributed outside of Google. We demo-ed it for certain third parties (HP and Asus) and gave them screenshots and design documents, but I'm 95% sure we never gave them a running copy of the OS image (unless that was done without my knowledge).

It's quite a common practice for companies to use and modify GPL projects for internal purposes or for use on a server (eg. Apache software), but since binaries are never distributed outside the company, GPL doesn't apply and the source code never gets distributed. For example, you can't ask eBay to give you the source code for their web servers, claiming GPL.

Note, Google did have, and I assume they still have, an official policy to merge back code modifications when they were broadly useful to the public, and they were generally quite thorough about doing it. That's helpful to the public and to Google, because it allows Google to keep using the most up-to-date revisions of any given open source project without forking and patching issues._________________http://www.jeff-nelson.comhttp://blog.jeff-nelson.com

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum